生成上传链接

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutating operation. The description adds that the link is temporary and that the user receives an identifier code after upload. However, it does not disclose side effects like link expiration details, permission requirements, or consequences of exceeding maxUses. Given annotations only cover safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with the core purpose (generating a link) and followed by the essential workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the expected return and flow. It clearly explains that the tool generates a link, the user uploads, and a code is returned for use with download_file. It doesn't specify the exact return structure (e.g., URL format), but for a zero-required-parameter tool with a straightforward purpose, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides; all parameter descriptions are clear and self-contained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: generating a temporary upload page link to be sent to a human user for browser uploads. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('upload link'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the identifier code workflow with download_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: use when you need a human to upload files via a browser link, then retrieve the file with download_file. It implies the workflow but does not explicitly mention alternatives like upload_file for direct uploads or when not to use it, so it's slightly incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.